Badminton Vs Tennis: HELP

[Rosie]

I am doing a project at uni on Badminton. i need a few comments from people of various ages just about why they play badminton, why it's an amazing sport, its benifits, and why it is superiour to Tennis. if anyone has any thoughts on any of these things then don't hesitate to write a reply. thanks in anticipation Rosie

[rachyuk]

Some people are able to play Badminton and Tennis, so obviously to those people the merits of playing both sports are equal.

Personally, I play badminton because it is faster than tennis. The strategy, anticipation and movement has to be faster to ensure a good game.

I like the feeling of hitting a good 'winning shot' out right and the sound of a brand new feather shuttle being struck is fantastic!

I also know a tennis professional who plays a little badminton. I'll get them to comment as well.

I found this article might be intersting:
TENNIS VS. BADMINTON

Statistics Don't Lie

The speed and the stamina required for badminton are far greater than for any other racket sport. At the 1985 All England (Tennis) Championships, Boris Becker defeated Kevin Curren 6-3, 6-7, 7-6, 6-4. At the 1985 World Badminton Championships in Calgary, Canada, Han Jian of China defeated Morten Frost of Denmark, 14-18, 15-10, 15-8.

The following is a statistical comparison of those matches.

Time: Tennis, 3 hours and 18 minutes. Badminton, 1 hour and 16 minutes.
Ball/Shuttle in Play: Tennis, 18 minutes. Badminton, 37 minutes.
Match Intensity*: Tennis, 9 percent. Badminton, 48 percent.
Rallies: Tennis 299. Badminton, 146.
Shots: Tennis, 1,004. Badminton, 1,972.
Shots Per Rally: Tennis, 3.4. Badminton, 13.5.
Distance Covered: Tennis, 2 miles. Badminton, 4 miles.

Note that the badminton players competed for half the time, yet ran twice as far and hit nearly twice as many shots.

*The actual time the ball/shuttle was in flight, divided by the length of the match.

[dlp]

Advantages of badminton:

Intensity, a match can be played in an hour vs tennis in which the frequent breaks can lead to long matches with little action. In badminton there are only breaks in play between ends.

Fitness-the demands on top players are as high as any sport and combine all of the elements of fitness

Variation/equality-in badminton all the disciplines are well supported, singles , doubles, in team events men and women play in the same team in tennis there are two separate tours mens and womens.

Badminton players can be all shapes and sizes, there are top players who are small and wide, but also tall.

Rallies-badminton is a game of rallies, in tennis on many surfaces the serve dominates, on all surfaces the two serve rule means many serve errors.

Badminton shots range from the most delicate to the fastest of any racket sport, there is also great variation in angle, deception and slice.

Popularity-badminton is far more popular for participation than tennis and is a major sport right across the world.

[Arifuk]

I played as a professional tennis player for 3 years and recently have been involved with playing badminton.

I agree that badminton requires more aerobic stamina than tennis, but tennis is harder because the technical skills are more difficult and because matches can go on over 3 hours concentration levels must be very high

I much prefer playing tennis because:
a. It's an outdoor sport, there's nothing like playing tennis in the sun
b. I love the feeling of striking a heavy ball as opposed to hitting a shuttle which feels like hitting air
c. In tennis we have to deal with the ball bouncing which introduces a lot of variation in spins

Let's get some facts straight:
1. Top tennis players can be all sizes too, look at Agassi (small), Safin (very tall), Sampras (wide)

2. The serve in tennis only dominates points on grass or very quick indoor surfaces, and the majority of tournaments are not on these surfaces

3. TV coverage of tennis is everywhere, it's very rare that I see badminton on Tv what does that tell you?

4. Tennis may not be as widely played as badminton but our facilities are excellent I don't remeber the last time I played tennis in a school gym

[rachyuk]

Horses for Courses though Arif - Tennis can be played more or less anywhere, whereas Badminton is an indoor sport, so there is more demand for badminton courts in any space we can get them, which often means 'school gyms', village halls and church halls in some cases ;0p

[Khalid]

Reasons I like badminton ...

1) I find it more technical. The variety of shots, movement and situations is much greater then any other racket sport.

2) It can be very tactical and one needs to think quickly on the move.

3) Physically its very demanding especially on anaerobic fitness. And when ones movement is quick and efficient it is quite exhilarating.

4) I am constantly learning more about the game, the better I get.

5) Its an indoor sport - ideally suited to the weather in England. One can play it all year round - rain or shine, wind or snow.

I used to play tennis as a youngster from about when I was five years old, and still enjoy playing it occasionally. However I found the clubs too clique .. either they play good tennis and were unfriendly, or they played knock about stuff and were friendly.

At school, people were never particularly encouraging towardds the game of tennis, and used to play football on the courts.

I have allways found badminton players more accommodating, thats not to say they cant be clique as well ;-)

At the end of the day its horses for courses ... not so much why one is superior/inferior then the other.

PS: Age ...I am almost a veteran ;-)

[Pglews]

I got this from my old coach, but apparently badminton is more demanding in physically because of particular movement.

The movement in question is when lunging for a shot that is low to the ground and then having to move up and play an overhead, i.e. raising your body in the same way that you would when you go from lying on your back to sitting up. In this case its from leaning forward to standing up.

I would advise getting this confirmed by someone who knows more than I do, but what my coach (a guy called Dave Addis) told me at the time, was that when you do that movement it is particularly hard on the heart. There is a lot of this in badminton, but very little in tennis by comparison, because there are less overhead shots. There are more incidences in squash by the way, but few when the racquet is fully overhead.

There were also some figures published in ESBA news years ago, comparing tennis to badminton (THAT Borg:McEnroe match, compared to Frost:Swie King) and in half the time taken, the shuttle had been in court (as in actually in play) for 40 minutes, ish, compared to 16 for the tennis and the tennis players had covered 2.2 miles, compared to 4.2 for badminton!

If I can find the figures, I'll let you know where from.

[Grover]

Difficult to compare both the sports as they have different attributes. Having played the two I like the fact that badminton has multi dimensions to it.

Stamina for a long match/explosive qualities over a few yards, powerful smashing/deft touch around the net, singles/doubles/ladies/mens all different disciplies using different tactics, sports centre/church hall.

You can also play badminton all year, come rain come shine.

[juniorbadmintonplayer]

ok I'm a junior badminton lpayer who plays for Yorkshire. i also play tennis occasionally but prefer badminton much more!I feel that badminton is a great game-full of intensity and competition-and also i can honestly tell you i have not met a nicer bunch of people than the people who i play badminton with!There is a great sense of community spirit and even though there is competition everyone is there for each other.

Badminton is great fitness.After playing the game i simply fell in love with it.I would play badminton even if i was on a desert hadn't eaten for 3 days and had no water!!!I feel exhilerated when i play!With tennis i didn't get the same community spirit and i felt the game lacked instenisty compared with badminton!Badminton is my passion and i live for it!

Hope that helped a bit...rishi :)

[Pglews]

Arif, just a word about the points that you laid out:

"I agree that badminton requires more aerobic stamina than tennis, but tennis is harder because the technical skills are more difficult and because matches can go on over 3 hours concentration levels must be very high

I much prefer playing tennis because:
a. It's an outdoor sport, there's nothing like playing tennis in the sun
b. I love the feeling of striking a heavy ball as opposed to hitting a shuttle which feels like hitting air
c. In tennis we have to deal with the ball bouncing which introduces a lot of variation in spins

Let's get some facts straight:
1. Top tennis players can be all sizes too, look at Agassi (small), Safin (very tall), Sampras (wide)

2. The serve in tennis only dominates points on grass or very quick indoor surfaces, and the majority of tournaments are not on these surfaces

3. TV coverage of tennis is everywhere, it's very rare that I see badminton on Tv what does that tell you?

4. Tennis may not be as widely played as badminton but our facilities are excellent I don't remeber the last time I played tennis in a school gym"

Firstly, you say that there is more technical skill in tennis. There isn't. You have groundstrokes and volleys as the basis for a rally (Sure, serve you can have slice, spin, kick and power, we can also slice a serve, as well as have flick, drive, high and low serves forehand and backhand but anyway, back to the rally.....) compared to a whip, tap, push, block and net shot in badminton, thats without adding slice shots, cut shots and spin shots (yeah you can spin a shuttle, on a net shot). Admittedly in tennis you have to read the spin and deal with it after the bounce, but in badminton it doesn't bounce, you have to read a spinning net shot there and then and do something about it. Also, in tennis you can play a dropshot from the back of the court, well, we have the same with a check smash, but we also have a punch clear and "hold-and-flick" shots at the net or mid-court, which add another dimension to the game.

As for concentration, you get a break every 2 games (apart from the start of a set in tennis), so you have time to re-think and to re-focus yourself. Badminton you only get a 90 second gap between sets and 5 minutes if its between the second and third, so you have to maintain your concentration for a longer period before you get a break. A tennis match may go on for longer, but badminton is more intense. More is packed into a smaller time frame. Its a different type of concentration therefore in terms of time and intensity. If you have a Tim Henman-esque lapse in badminton you'd be lucky to pull it back!

As for the shape of tennis players, Agassi is still quoted as being 5'11", which may be short, but badminton has had guys like Eddy Choong and Yap Kim Hock who are around the 5'3" mark and still been successful. The Rochus brothers in tennis are about 5'4" or 5'5" and with all due respect their successes are minor in comparison, so being exceptionally short doesn't seem to help.

Agreed, your point about the serve is valid, faster surfaces benefit the serve and dominant servers won't do so well on clay, inspite of Wayne Arthurs valiant attempt to prove otherwise!

TV coverage of tennis is greater than badminton. What that tells me is that something needs to be done about the marketing of badminton. Thats what that says to me. The image presented on TV is still wrong and the image that the public have of badminton is still wrong.
Tennis getting there first doesn't help, because doubles badminton is probably going to have more mass appeal than singles, due to the pace and skill of the game, where as doubles tennis gets a far lower billing.

Before McEnroe the image of tennis was still quite a stuffy one. His rivalry with Borg was inspiring, as was his respect for Borg, his autobiography says that (McEnroe's). He was also surprised that he wasn't defaulted more often....and why not? Because he created some intrigue, some controversy, so tournament organisers wanted him kept in because people wanted to see him. People get disappointed when he doesn't explode now on the seniors tour!!
The same as when Nirvana didn't play Smells Like Teen Spirit at a gig in Mexico, it nearly started a riot!
There was controversy a the Asian games over line calls and there were protests left right and centre over it. Had that been on TV here and the right kind of hype built up, then it could have been sold!!! Of course its not that simple, but its an example!
Oh and while we're on TV coverage, tennis is far too quiet and the crowd involvement is poor! As a result players whinge too much whenever there's a noise. Badminton matches have an awesome atmosphere, long live the Asian and Danish fans who yell encouragement to their players. Its got to be a real boost as a player to have 1000's of fans behind your smash, rather than complete silence...which by the way adds a whole new dimension to concentration!

Lastly, what is your point about tennis not being played in a school gym?? Sport played at school means that more people have access to it. The fact that it can be played in the gym and on a smaller court space means again, more potential access to the game!! There are also some excellent badminton facilities around the country, granted some bad ones too, but having some access is better than having none!

[george]

Hi Pete,

Well done mate!

You put forward a very sound case against Arif.

You are absolutely right in saying that badminton requires a greater level of skill as there are a greater variety of shot possibilties as you so ably set out.

The fitness requirements of badminton exceed those of tennis as there is a greater range of movement from very low to high jump smashes where players can be off the ground some 3 foot or more.

Rallies in badminton tend to be longer requiring greater stamina. The range of speed of the shuttle is far greater than that of a tennis ball from virtually zero speed on a caressed tight net shot upto smash speeds of almost 200 mph!

Deception can be applied much more in badminton with hold and flick moves, overhead forehand shots made to look the same (clears, drops and Smashes), split secound changes of wrist to send the opponent the wrong way, slices both reverse and straight, skillfull use of body speed - coming into the net very fast and then checking speed to play a soft shot. Even on the backhand which I think the Danes semm to excell in, deception is evident. I had the pleasure of witnessing Hoyer Larsen deceive Heryanto Arbi in the All England final 1995 when Arbi was convinced he would play his backhand to the net therefore took a step forward. Hoyer played an attacking clear for an outright winner. He did it several times against Park Sung Woo of Korea the following year. Even in the Olympic final which he won that year, (1996) Dong Jiong was very wary of taking too forward a base which is one of the chinese tactics. These are some of the methods of deception I am aware of . There may be more. What of tennis in this area of the game?

Arif's comment about players of all sizes able to compete is simply not true in tennis. Taller players have an advantage in serving due to pure geometry. A shorter (below 5ft 9 say) would find it more difficult to get a hard serve in. (Eg. Michael Chang 5ft 7ins). I remember when I played tennis as a young man in the 80's, I could serve quite hard but being only 5ft 5ins tall had difficulty keeping the ball in the service area. Consequently had to ease off on the power serves.

In Badminton this lack of height would have no detrimental effect. Short Players such as Han Jian of China was only 5ft 3ins but managed to beat Morten Frost (6ft 2ins) more times than not.

The reason for badminton's lack of kudos and therefore TV exposure in England is of low public perception and poor marketing. It would go a long way for the sport in England to have someone who was either successful against the might of Asia as in Denmark where badminton has a very high profile rivalling footballs can you believe!! There they have had world beaters for many years. Also having a "character" in the sport would help. I'm not sugesting we have a McEnroe in badminton but it could help as long as they carried along with this unacceptable behaviour a streak of playing genius and won major titles. This would grab the media's attention as controversy usually does.

A successful player with great looks is another way forward. Look what Camilla Martin has done for Danish badminton - beauty, feisty on court and a winner! - World Champion 1999/Olympic Silver medalist 2000/All England Champion 2002. Her public love her so much that they voted her Sports personality of the year 2000!! She even has her own website where she is not only portrayed for her badminton but for her supermodel looks in some scantilly clothed poses! - check it out guys!!!!

Tennis vs badminton. Each has its merits but badminton has more and deserves better kudos and recognition for the great sport that it is! Just look at the numbers that play it nationally and globally. Our National Governing Body the BA of E needs to have a major rethink on its marketing strategies!

[Arifuk]

Interesting points George.

Am curious about some of your facts though:

1. You quote about Micheal Chang, not being able to compete is misleading. Michael was number 2 in the world for a few years as well as winning a grand slam event and reaching the final of a few others. That sounds like competing to me.

I accept that taller players have an advantage on the serve but contrary to popular belief tennis is not all about the serve.
Smaller players have an advantage when moving and on ground strokes and the current world number one Leyton Hewitt is under 6 feet.

2. When you talk about badminton players being fitter than tennis players, you re not specific in about which areas of fitness you are talking about, as you probably know there are many areas to fitness; speed, strength, power, stamina, flexibility, strength endurance.
Fitness is not necessarily tougher in badminton, we have to cover a much larger court and we have to keep up high levels of speed and power often over 3 hours which requires much more strength endurance.

3. Tennis like golf is perceived rightly or wrongly as a rich person’s sport. A lot of tennis facilities are great networking grounds for business people, advertisers then will pay a lot of money to reach these high net worth individuals, this is one reason why there is a lot more money in tennis.

4. Deception play can be applied just as easily in tennis, we have drop shots, lobs, angles, spins, changes of pace, changes in height. We also have shots where you can flick your wrist at the last moment.

5. The Power : Control ratio is harder in tennis, whenever you hit the ball harder in tennis it is harder to control, a shuttle is easier to control than a tennis ball.

6. An added dimension to tennis is the different surfaces, this requires a totally different mind set and allows different styles of play to excel e.g. Spanish players excel on Clay and American players excel on Hard Courts. An exciting element to tennis is when a clay court player competes against a grass court player; the different styles often make for a fascinating contest.

7. The serve is technically one of the hardest shots in sport there are so many moving parts and lots of steps in co-ordination chain.
In tennis because the serve is such a weapon, where as in badminton the serve is at best a neutral shot it makes for a different mindset. There is a lot of pressure for players to hold their serve and often one lapse of concentration on a service game can result in the loss of a set.

[george]

Arif,

How many succesful (and I mean at the elite end of the game) do you know in tennis who are under 6 ft ?

Leyton Hewitt is only just under 6 ft as well!

Michael Chang made up for his lack of height with supreme fitness (his leg muscles were a subject of much interest as they were phenomenal - as large and defined as some of the greatest badminton players of the time!!) and was only no. 2 in the world for a few months if I recall. He won one grand slam at the peak of his powers. Hardly qualifies him for the Tennis Hall of Fame!!

The point is irrefutably that top level tennis is virtually inaccessible to shorties like myself unlike badminton where players of all heights have dominated over history. Even in the modern womens game, the leading lights, the Williams sisters are taller than most of their adversaries.

As for fitness , there have been a number of investigations into racket sports (I remember reading one in 1994/5 published by "Racket Sports") where they compared fitness levels in the 3 racket sports (discounting racketball a very minor sport played by a very few in US). It was done scientifically using international standard players and measuring lactic acid production, oxygen uptake etc.. Speed, strength, stamina, power and flexibilty were also tested.
Squash came out on top for stamina with badminton a close 2nd. Tennis came out top for strength and badminton topped the speed, power, and flexibilty areas they surveyed.
At the end of the day we could argue till the cows come home and it is personal preference as to which of the racket sports one prefers. What I am saying is that independent research has continually discovered that fitness levels are higher in badminton than tennis.

[george]

[Pglews]

Hi George! Thanx for the backup.
Arif, once again, a response to your points:

"1. You quote about Micheal Chang, not being able to compete is misleading. Michael was number 2 in the world for a few years as well as winning a grand slam event and reaching the final of a few others. That sounds like competing to me.

I accept that taller players have an advantage on the serve but contrary to popular belief tennis is not all about the serve.
Smaller players have an advantage when moving and on ground strokes and the current world number one Leyton Hewitt is under 6 feet.

2. When you talk about badminton players being fitter than tennis players, you re not specific in about which areas of fitness you are talking about, as you probably know there are many areas to fitness; speed, strength, power, stamina, flexibility, strength endurance.
Fitness is not necessarily tougher in badminton, we have to cover a much larger court and we have to keep up high levels of speed and power often over 3 hours which requires much more strength endurance.

3. Tennis like golf is perceived rightly or wrongly as a rich person’s sport. A lot of tennis facilities are great networking grounds for business people, advertisers then will pay a lot of money to reach these high net worth individuals, this is one reason why there is a lot more money in tennis.

4. Deception play can be applied just as easily in tennis, we have drop shots, lobs, angles, spins, changes of pace, changes in height. We also have shots where you can flick your wrist at the last moment.

5. The Power : Control ratio is harder in tennis, whenever you hit the ball harder in tennis it is harder to control, a shuttle is easier to control than a tennis ball.

6. An added dimension to tennis is the different surfaces, this requires a totally different mind set and allows different styles of play to excel e.g. Spanish players excel on Clay and American players excel on Hard Courts. An exciting element to tennis is when a clay court player competes against a grass court player; the different styles often make for a fascinating contest.

7. The serve is technically one of the hardest shots in sport there are so many moving parts and lots of steps in co-ordination chain.
In tennis because the serve is such a weapon, where as in badminton the serve is at best a neutral shot it makes for a different mindset. There is a lot of pressure for players to hold their serve and often one lapse of concentration on a service game can result in the loss of a set."

1. Well, I think George has this one covered!!

2. Yes you do have a much larger court to cover, but how frequently do you use all of it?? Be honest, a baseline-to-baseline match doesn't involve the same kind of movement, because it quite often remains at the back, unless someone plays a dropshot and they (mainly) either win the point outright, get passed, or intercept the pass. Serve volleyers? Normally very short points, due to the nature of the style, its kill or be killed!!
In badminton, we use the whole of the court in almost every rally. The movement is harder on the muscles, in a shorter space of time, so if you're talking strength endurance tennis only comes close on a clay court.
Sampras is notorious for having stamina problems as well. Something that badminton players can never be accused of at the same level. Many of them are able to stay there because they back up their ability with the appropriate level of fitness.

Oh and 3 hours, yeah sure, but you guys get a break almost every two games. Its not like half an hour of constant activity (which is once again more intensive) before you get a break and can have a seat. The recovery time allowed in tennis is far greater. I would argue that clay courts are the main time when endurance and muscle fatigue (not injury) comes into it. Walking to the other side of the court to return another booming serve at Wimbledon doesn't count as a great deal of exercise.
Another point on strength endurance, how many times do you guys jump fully for a shot? Not very often...and I mean fully, not as in for a serve. Sampras may be known for his slam dunk smash, but he doesn't do it on most points and more than several times per point!!!

3. Yes, tennis does have this as a positive, but its also a detriment, because it can create an elitist attitude and mean that people with less cash can't afford to play, regardless of ability. Reasons why only Henman can compete.
This is why there's a crisis at the moment, because he doesn't appear to have a successor.

4.Yes, deception play can be applied to tennis, but it is more limited, due to there being less basic strokes to alternate between, you can basically have deception on a groundstroke, there aren't the same deception opportunities in tennis. Having watched both, you will frequently see badminton players noted for their ability to deceive an opponnent, but very few tennis players credited with the same ability.

5. True....at a basic level, in badminton it depends entirely on what you're trying to do to the shuttle. Applying spin effectively is nowhere near as simple as in tennis. I can barely play tennis, but I can spin a tennis ball, spinning a badminton shuttle for a net shot is a different matter. Sure I can do it, but nowhere near as easily. Also controlling a slice is far more difficult. A tennis ball bouncing means that you can play an effective slice which can still bounce inside the court with a far greater margin of error than something that is sliced and must remain in the court when it lands, because it has to be tighter to the lines to be effective!

6. Actually, what this means is that the early rounds can be a complete wash out in major events, as grass and hard court specialists fall flat on their arses on clay and the clay courters struggle with wimbledon. This means that the better matches (of course with some exceptions) are often later in tournaments. Often in badminton the Indonesians spice things up by altering their pairings meaning that they have a lower seeded/unseeded pairing that can do some damage and provide some entertainment early on. Its not unusual for seedings to get upset by someone on a hot streak and to have some really class matches in the earlier rounds.
Also, the only time watching two people who are experts on different surfaces is interesting is when they are a match for each other, which the earlier part of your point contradicts by talking about specialisation.

7. Take a step back and look at the top level matches in badminton. The serve is equally important in badminton. Yeah sure, holding serve in tennis is important, but if you can't serve in badminton, you're getting nowhere either, because of course you can only win points on your serve!
The serve may not win the point outright, but it normally defines the rally that follows. A bad serve and you'll be defending for the start of the rally and relying on your ability to turn it around. A good serve and you'll be attacking. Serve well and you'll often have the easier task. Getting a serve tight to the tape is paramount, or getting a deceptive flick serve in doubles, as is putting a high serve a decent length in singles. Its not easy to serve when someone's hovering over the net ready to kill your serve and when you know that they can nail your flick serve. You have to worry about the return a lot more, because unlike tennis you are not the aggressor, so its a different situation, requiring a different form of concentration that is potentially more intense. Imagine every serve being the pyshcological equivalent of being down 0-40 and you'll get the picture.
Also, seasoned professionals such as McEnroe and Navratilova have recognised how boring it can be to watch a Philippoussis-Krajicek (I'm not talking this year, because of course they'd both been out for a while, it may have been 1996 when this happened, but I'm not 100% on the facts, as it was a while back!) style match at Wimbledon; i.e. that ends 18-16 in the fifth set, because both players are struggling to return the other's serve, hence their call for wooden racquets. Luckily some of the baseliners learned to play their trade, which made it a lot more interesting, but the fact still stands that there is potential for a very boring match however you look at it.

8. A little bit of a niggly point this, but tennis has no formal world championship. Yeah there is the Masters Cup, but its bery elitist and also can't be a true World Championship due to the surface differences. This meas that tennis does not allow for the prestige of being a true world champion. Admittedly being world no.1 is all well and good, but I'm sure if you ask Peter Gade which he would rather have; several years at world no.1 or one of the two world championships he came so close to winning and I don't think we need to debate the answer. The same would probably be true of Pete Sampras, who is regarded as one of the finest, but it is disputed because there was one surface that he never won on! Yeah I know he was given the effective title of World Champion, but it wasn't quite as official as winning an actual world championship.

[Pglews]

Hi George! Thanx for the backup.
Arif, once again, a response to your points:

"1. You quote about Micheal Chang, not being able to compete is misleading. Michael was number 2 in the world for a few years as well as winning a grand slam event and reaching the final of a few others. That sounds like competing to me.

I accept that taller players have an advantage on the serve but contrary to popular belief tennis is not all about the serve.
Smaller players have an advantage when moving and on ground strokes and the current world number one Leyton Hewitt is under 6 feet.

2. When you talk about badminton players being fitter than tennis players, you re not specific in about which areas of fitness you are talking about, as you probably know there are many areas to fitness; speed, strength, power, stamina, flexibility, strength endurance.
Fitness is not necessarily tougher in badminton, we have to cover a much larger court and we have to keep up high levels of speed and power often over 3 hours which requires much more strength endurance.

3. Tennis like golf is perceived rightly or wrongly as a rich person’s sport. A lot of tennis facilities are great networking grounds for business people, advertisers then will pay a lot of money to reach these high net worth individuals, this is one reason why there is a lot more money in tennis.

4. Deception play can be applied just as easily in tennis, we have drop shots, lobs, angles, spins, changes of pace, changes in height. We also have shots where you can flick your wrist at the last moment.

5. The Power : Control ratio is harder in tennis, whenever you hit the ball harder in tennis it is harder to control, a shuttle is easier to control than a tennis ball.

6. An added dimension to tennis is the different surfaces, this requires a totally different mind set and allows different styles of play to excel e.g. Spanish players excel on Clay and American players excel on Hard Courts. An exciting element to tennis is when a clay court player competes against a grass court player; the different styles often make for a fascinating contest.

7. The serve is technically one of the hardest shots in sport there are so many moving parts and lots of steps in co-ordination chain.
In tennis because the serve is such a weapon, where as in badminton the serve is at best a neutral shot it makes for a different mindset. There is a lot of pressure for players to hold their serve and often one lapse of concentration on a service game can result in the loss of a set."

1. Well, I think George has this one covered!!

2. Yes you do have a much larger court to cover, but how frequently do you use all of it?? Be honest, a baseline-to-baseline match doesn't involve the same kind of movement, because it quite often remains at the back, unless someone plays a dropshot and they (mainly) either win the point outright, get passed, or intercept the pass. Serve volleyers? Normally very short points, due to the nature of the style, its kill or be killed!!
In badminton, we use the whole of the court in almost every rally. The movement is harder on the muscles, in a shorter space of time, so if you're talking strength endurance tennis only comes close on a clay court.
Sampras is notorious for having stamina problems as well. Something that badminton players can never be accused of at the same level. Many of them are able to stay there because they back up their ability with the appropriate level of fitness.

Oh and 3 hours, yeah sure, but you guys get a break almost every two games. Its not like half an hour of constant activity (which is once again more intensive) before you get a break and can have a seat. The recovery time allowed in tennis is far greater. I would argue that clay courts are the main time when endurance and muscle fatigue (not injury) comes into it. Walking to the other side of the court to return another booming serve at Wimbledon doesn't count as a great deal of exercise.
Another point on strength endurance, how many times do you guys jump fully for a shot? Not very often...and I mean fully, not as in for a serve. Sampras may be known for his slam dunk smash, but he doesn't do it on most points and more than several times per point!!!

3. Yes, tennis does have this as a positive, but its also a detriment, because it can create an elitist attitude and mean that people with less cash can't afford to play, regardless of ability. Reasons why only Henman can compete.
This is why there's a crisis at the moment, because he doesn't appear to have a successor.

4.Yes, deception play can be applied to tennis, but it is more limited, due to there being less basic strokes to alternate between, you can basically have deception on a groundstroke, there aren't the same deception opportunities in tennis. Having watched both, you will frequently see badminton players noted for their ability to deceive an opponnent, but very few tennis players credited with the same ability.

5. True....at a basic level, in badminton it depends entirely on what you're trying to do to the shuttle. Applying spin effectively is nowhere near as simple as in tennis. I can barely play tennis, but I can spin a tennis ball, spinning a badminton shuttle for a net shot is a different matter. Sure I can do it, but nowhere near as easily. Also controlling a slice is far more difficult. A tennis ball bouncing means that you can play an effective slice which can still bounce inside the court with a far greater margin of error than something that is sliced and must remain in the court when it lands, because it has to be tighter to the lines to be effective!

6. Actually, what this means is that the early rounds can be a complete wash out in major events, as grass and hard court specialists fall flat on their arses on clay and the clay courters struggle with wimbledon. This means that the better matches (of course with some exceptions) are often later in tournaments. Often in badminton the Indonesians spice things up by altering their pairings meaning that they have a lower seeded/unseeded pairing that can do some damage and provide some entertainment early on. Its not unusual for seedings to get upset by someone on a hot streak and to have some really class matches in the earlier rounds.
Also, the only time watching two people who are experts on different surfaces is interesting is when they are a match for each other, which the earlier part of your point contradicts by talking about specialisation.

7. Take a step back and look at the top level matches in badminton. The serve is equally important in badminton. Yeah sure, holding serve in tennis is important, but if you can't serve in badminton, you're getting nowhere either, because of course you can only win points on your serve!
The serve may not win the point outright, but it normally defines the rally that follows. A bad serve and you'll be defending for the start of the rally and relying on your ability to turn it around. A good serve and you'll be attacking. Serve well and you'll often have the easier task. Getting a serve tight to the tape is paramount, or getting a deceptive flick serve in doubles, as is putting a high serve a decent length in singles. Its not easy to serve when someone's hovering over the net ready to kill your serve and when you know that they can nail your flick serve. You have to worry about the return a lot more, because unlike tennis you are not the aggressor, so its a different situation, requiring a different form of concentration that is potentially more intense. Imagine every serve being the pyshcological equivalent of being down 0-40 and you'll get the picture.
Also, seasoned professionals such as McEnroe and Navratilova have recognised how boring it can be to watch a Philippoussis-Krajicek (I'm not talking this year, because of course they'd both been out for a while, it may have been 1996 when this happened, but I'm not 100% on the facts, as it was a while back!) style match at Wimbledon; i.e. that ends 18-16 in the fifth set, because both players are struggling to return the other's serve, hence their call for wooden racquets. Luckily some of the baseliners learned to play their trade, which made it a lot more interesting, but the fact still stands that there is potential for a very boring match however you look at it.

8. A little bit of a niggly point this, but tennis has no formal world championship. Yeah there is the Masters Cup, but its bery elitist and also can't be a true World Championship due to the surface differences. This meas that tennis does not allow for the prestige of being a true world champion. Admittedly being world no.1 is all well and good, but I'm sure if you ask Peter Gade which he would rather have; several years at world no.1 or one of the two world championships he came so close to winning and I don't think we need to debate the answer. The same would probably be true of Pete Sampras, who is regarded as one of the finest, but it is disputed because there was one surface that he never won on! Yeah I know he was given the effective title of World Champion, but it wasn't quite as official as winning an actual world championship.

[RStroud]

This can all get very technical - just a few simple points. Even with ballboys/girls I once timed how long the ball was actually "in play" in a Mens Singles at Wimbledon. In one hour it was 6 minutes 20 seconds. Compare that to badminton's 20+ minutes? No wonder women's tennis is becoming more popular to watch. Transfer that to park tennis where most players spend almost all of the time picking the balls up often from the bushes or out of the stream! Also just look at the T shaped area baseliners wear down on a grass court. That speaks volumes. Unlike badminton, many tennis players rarely venture to the net. Hardly an all court game. Also people get very excited when "Pistol Pete" does his "slam dunk" smash, but how many do you get in a singles match? Since hardly anyone lobs in top tennis you're lucky to see one - whereas smashes are ten a penny in badminton. If tennis spectators like to see smashes so much, why on earth don't they check badminton out?
On a different yet related tack, it would be interesting if a tournament were organised for the top players in the four racket games - badminton, tennis, squash and table tennis - in which they played each other in three games but were not allowed to play "their game". Who out there thinks would win and why? Any sports promoters reading this? Might pull in a load of viewers?

[Kiwiplayer]

Roger - Don't get me wrong, I love badminton and it's the only racquet sport I play, but I think Squash players would do best in your theoretical tournament. They also require good fitness and their racquet skills seem to transfer to either tennis or badminton quite well.

[RStroud]

Wayne - No problem with that at all. Could well be the squasher would come out on top. Any other views?

[Frodo]

People get fit for their sport,especially when one plays at the top level you work to your limits and requirements of the sport.

As for transferring racquet skills from one to another .. I know a number of good badminton players who now play squash in their older years. Squash requires more stamina then explosive movements, and stamina is easier as you get older.

As for the hardest racquet sport .. it must be ping pong !

Dynamic, quick, high levels of concentration required.

;-)

[Pglews]

Roger, I think there was something like that put together, it was advertised on the worldbadminton website, but I don't think it got the tv coverage, Thomas Johansson (the badminton guy, not his tennis namesake) entered, but I can't remember much of the info, its probably in the archive, sorry I can't be more use!

Frodo, yeah, some good points, although John Power made it to the top on the Haagen Dasz diet (as Mr. McEnroe would put it!!), but players like Peter Nicol do train to a very high fitness level.

[zephyr]

Well, first of all, i play both tennis and badminton.

I like both of them of course and will be trying out for varsity teams.
But personally, i think badminton is much funner because the game is really going fast and you have to catch up or else you'll drop. There are many moves you can do in badminton too. And something logical, tennis courts take up more than 4 badminton courts so many people cant play. Also, the sound of the impact of the birdie and the racket sounds so good to me. Another thing is that in 1 hour youve already played three games, and when in tennis you play 6 games. So each game is played specifically fine. BADMINTON ROX!